Welcome to E-Goat :: The Totally Unofficial Royal Air Force Rumour Network
Join our free community to unlock a range of benefits like:
  • Post and participate in discussions.
  • Send and receive private messages with other members.
  • Respond to polls and surveys.
  • Upload and share content.
  • Gain access to exclusive features and tools.
Join 7.5K others today

Pay Rise 2014

  • Following weeks of work, the E-GOAT team are delighted to present to you a new look to the forums with plenty of new features. Take a look around and see what you think!
Trending This Week
View More Trending
NHS singled out

NHS singled out

I read an article that seemed to single NHS out.
There is pay spines and AI for many Public sector workers. I don't see the difference?
My better half is NHS.

She spends loads on her Pension contributions and her registration fees seems to double every year.

All this rubbish about pay rise or patient care is a smoke screen.
If the nurses get fed up - last straw - cant afford childcare etc Then we end up with more expensive agency staff and more foreign Nurses who cant speak good enough English and are not trained to the same degree and the care will suffer.

It pains me to say it but she is getting more kicks than I could handle before I jacked in the RAF.
She is a saint and her commitment and ethics and effort she puts in for her patients is the complete opposite of the spineless bean counters who keep pushing and kicking until they break the system and can use it as an excuse to bash the other parties.
 
I reckon the bankers should be performing daily oral sex on every customer that has an account cos the thievin' tw@ts only have a job cos the tax payin' man in the street who they've been screwin' for years, bailed their sorry arses out of the sh!t.
 
Pay awards are not given according to worth, but to how much is left in the bucket and how what can be considered a good risk to gain return on investment rather than simply servicing a cost centre.

You may not like it, but this is the most pragmatic of matters and is dealt with in the most pragmatic of ways.
 
Stevienics said:
Pay awards are not given according to worth, but to how much is left in the bucket and how what can be considered a good risk to gain return on investment rather than simply servicing a cost centre.

You may not like it, but this is the most pragmatic of matters and is dealt with in the most pragmatic of ways.
Click to expand...

That may be true of some, however our illustrious masters choose their own and haven't exactly been keeping themselves in line with their employee's now have they. Sign of poor leadership?
 
Ghandi's Flip-Flop said:
That may be true of some, however our illustrious masters choose their own and haven't exactly been keeping themselves in line with their employee's now have they. Sign of poor leadership?
Click to expand...

MPs are paid a pittance for the work involved and the almost certainty of being fired at the end of it, and to be frank, that is why we attract only those ppl of independent means to whom the remuneration means little, or the plain useless one's, who couldn't earn more than that in a real job.

I would pay them all 100 grand a year, for the incremental rise might just tempt the competent ones away from the private sector and push the useless voice boxes out
 
Stevienics said:
MPs are paid a pittance for the work involved and the almost certainty of being fired at the end of it, and to be frank, that is why we attract only those ppl of independent means to whom the remuneration means little, or the plain useless one's, who couldn't earn more than that in a real job.

I would pay them all 100 grand a year, for the incremental rise might just tempt the competent ones away from the private sector and push the useless voice boxes out
Click to expand...

I have to strongly disagree with you, not only do most of these guys have consultancy roles netting them far in excess of their MP's wage, but their expenses package as regularly demonstrated by printed figures in the media is even more generous again.

If the only thing stopping certain individuals from entering politics is a fear they couldn't possibly live on an overall package of in excess of 100K a year, I'd suggest they're not very well placed to make budgetary decisions affecting the general populace, the vast majority of which could only dream of earning that kind of salary.

i fiercely believe politics should be a secondary career after an individual has proven their competence in another area. the current generation of career politicians having done nothing but worked for a political party after university are what's wrong with the current system. Who else would get to run a PLC with absolutely no experience or having displayed no other competence?
 
Not to mention their very generous pension plans, which strangely enough haven't been affected in the same way as HMF, NHS etc.

We're all in this together, just some of us more than others!

What I'd give to have a generation of politicians who view Orwell's works as a warning rather than a sodding blueprint.
 
FOMz said:
Just to lay it out a bit...

View attachment 13326

0% for the Police.. Unnoficial revenge for Plebgate perhaps?
Click to expand...


Out of interest Fomz, what is your source for Bankers getting 35% pay rises? Or is it just a pulled out of the backside figure to play on anti-bank sentiment?

The reality I am aware of is that ‘most’ bankers are looking just to keep jobs this year, and are certainly not thinking about pay rises or big bonuses .

(There are, of course a few high flyers that will get big bonuses, a few bluffers that will tell you they did; and some losers that think they deserved a bonus they are not going to get)

The fact is; most banks are laying tens of thousands of people off at the moment – not giving boom year pay rises and bonuses.

I’m not pleading a case for sympathy for banks and bankers - but, if there are banks really giving out 35% pay rises this year, knowing which ones they are would be good as my gardening leave ends soon ;-)

Oh, and the law was quietly changed to allow bonuses to be taken back if unpaid (they tend to be paid as long term incentives, in increments, over anything up to 15 years – but usually 10

Source : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26561878

Examples to support my statement that banks are shedding tens of thousands of jobs this year:

After already shedding 40,000 jobs, RBS now plans to shed another 30,000 positions:

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/02/21/uk-rbs-restructuring-idUKBREA1K0FR20140221
http://news.sky.com/story/1192282/project-cook-signals-huge-rbs-cost-cuts

Barclays is cutting 12,000 jobs http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26131799

Lloyds are shedding about 1100, on top of the 35,000 already gone http://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/L...jobs-country/story-20512499-detail/story.html

Co-op Bank has announced ‘significant’ job cuts http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/3251952/Top-10-bank-job-cuts.html

Deutche Bank is shedding 20,000 jobs (worldwide)

JPMorgan announced 12,000 layoffs (worldwide)
 
How many of those job losses are bankers we all love to hate, and how many are branch or back office workers?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
 
The banks are not the banks, and the institutional banks operate in an entirely different way.

Its a rum life when you demonise someone and want them to lose their livelihood because of a perceived and largely mythical ill-harm. And a little sad in many ways.

This is how the left operate; garner the jealous and ill considered anger of the simple, and focus it upon the unreachable and intangible "enemy". You are being used if you think this way.
 
busby1971 said:
How many of those job losses are bankers we all love to hate, and how many are branch or back office workers?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


Good point Busby, the vast majority of the UK population do not know, or care, about the difference between a ‘Banker’ and someone who works for a Bank (back office, operations, etc). I’ve seen several examples of front line retail branch staff taking masses of abuse from the public, as if they personally caused the financial crash

And as Stevie points out , just as few know, or I suspect care, about the difference between a retail bank and institutional banking.. That, of course is not helped by a number of banks muddying the waters in their quest to become global integrated banking powerhouses – although that, as we now know, all too often just meant doing some casino banking with the retail banks cash reserves!..

To answer the question – my guess is: ‘across the board’. I used RBS and Barclays as examples, as both are directing a lot of the cuts at their Investment Banking arms. However, if a Bank decides to concentrate on the few Investment Banking things it does well (eg M&A, FX, or Structured Finance) and downsize / sell off / shut down the rest, while a number of investment bankers will be laid off – the back office staff who supported them will also be wiped out.

So why across the board, with the level of cuts RBS announced, it cannot be just the IB, and with the rise of internet and mobile banking – Branches get used less and less each quarter, quite a number run at a big loss. With losses of 5 Billion last year, and 8 Billion this year – it would be a safe bet that the loss making branches are being looked at. My guess (no proof) would be a smaller number of branches positioned in better locations. I also saw some news items about more use of post offices for cashing and depositing cheques.

Add into that, RBS are selling off 320 odd branches to create a new competitor bank (Rainbow / Williams and Glyn) – Again, with less branches, and the increase in customers doing transactions themselves online – I’d say the back office / operations staff would be fair game to be a part of the cull.

Either way, there will be less jobs in the financial sector this time next year (on top of the 150,000 who have been culled since the start of the crisis in 2008) – and less jobs for investment bankers. That said – the most effective ones will always be in demand, and will probably manage to mangle a premium in their wages if Banks go for fewer , but more effective, bankers. That said, some will be decent people, and a lot will continue to be arrogant a-holes , Investment Banking has always attracted a certain type of person ;-)

I should also add, as PPI has shown, the retail banks must take their share of the blame for bad behavior from bank staff - albeit far less than the damage caused by a the likes of the bankers at Goldmans..........
 
Stevienics said:
This is how the left operate; garner the jealous and ill considered anger of the simple, and focus it upon the unreachable and intangible "enemy".
Click to expand...

No, the left just say it as it is and stands up against getting f**ked over. The only other alternative is to act like sheep, blindly believe everything the politicians want you to believe and never speak out. It's because of these people the politicians get away with giving us a payrise below the rate of inflation, changing the pensions that were in our contract, tax us more, provide us with less.

Sometimes some political questioning is a good thing, as it keeps them in check. The politicians should be working for us.

The left are "power to you people" and not to the bankers, who run your country.
 
Last edited:
It's the politics of "it was him, not me". Labour love it; even rely on it. It's a mistruth that has re-elected countless lerfy state economies - all of which, without ANY exceptions, has failed. ALL of them.

The very best anyone might ever expect from a Labour vote is another 4 years enslaved to the state. Just like they want you.
 
XVR RA RA RA said:

The left are "power to you people" and not to the bankers, who run your country.
Click to expand...

Do you really believe this, in this country at least the left tend to be typified as big state, very much a parent child relationship.




Any misunderstandings above caused by predictive texf
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top